H1B-GC
02-02 04:03 PM
eb_retrogression,
Can you post the article here? I'm not able to get to it.
Admin,
Here you go ::p
President Takes Dual Tack on Immigration
White House Seeks Tougher Enforcement,
While Pushing Idea of Guest-Worker Program
By JUNE KRONHOLZ
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
February 2, 2006; Page A8
WASHINGTON -- President bush drew big applause during his State of the Union address with a renewed call for "a rational, humane guest-worker program" to keep the economy humming.
But that appeal came only after Mr. Bush issued a much sterner one first -- for tougher enforcement of immigration laws, more vigilance on the border and an immigration policy that "reflects our values."
The message Mr. Bush delivered to lawmakers is the same one an increasingly vocal anti-immigration chorus is sending to him: First get tough; then we'll talk.
Mr. Bush was cheered by an unlikely alliance of pro-business Republicans, Democrats, unions and immigrant groups when he called for a guest-worker program in his State of the Union address two years ago. But the idea has hit a wall of opposition from the party's cultural conservatives and security hawks who first want to stop the flood of illegal immigrants into the U.S. (See related article.)
In December, the House of Representatives passed legislation that would, among other things, extend a short wall on the border with Mexico to 700 miles. The Senate, which had planned to overhaul immigration laws when it takes up its own bill in a few weeks, now also is under pressure from some Republicans to toughen border controls first.
As immigration soars to an all-time high, that get-tough argument is gaining political steam. With the 2006 elections still 10 months away, a half-dozen candidates are running for national office on pledges to stop illegal immigration. Bills on the issue, many denying benefits to illegal immigrants, have been introduced in 31 state legislatures.
STATE OF THE UNION REVIEW
• Can President's Plan Keep America Competitive?
• Bush's Energy Plan Faces Hurdles
• Industry Cheers Cleaner-Coal Push
• Full Text: Read the complete prepared text of the address.
• Question of the Day: Which topic should the Bush administration make its top priority this year?
And polls show mounting voter unease about immigration: A December 2005 Wall Street Journal-NBC poll found that 57% of those questioned think the U.S. is "too open to immigrants."
"It's astonishing how much this has become an issue across the country," says Brian Bilbray, a San Diego Republican who hopes to return to the U.S. House of Representatives this year after spending the past six years as a lobbyist for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which wants to restrict immigration.
But for all the emotion immigration is stirring up, political operatives in both parties warn that it isn't an issue that rallies voters. "Will this impact your electoral ambitions?" asks Ryan Ellis of the conservative group Americans for Tax Reform, who has studied the role immigration played in recent elections. "All history has indicated 'no,' whether you're in Arizona or Maine," he answers.
It didn't prove a successful strategy for the Virginia governor's race in November. Republican Jerry Kilgore seized late in the campaign on the issue of taxpayer-funded job centers for illegal immigrants, and in a stinging television ad asked of his Democratic opponent, "What part of illegal does Tim Kaine not understand?" Although immigration was only one issue in the campaign, Mr. Kaine won with 52% of the vote.
Likewise, in December, in a special House election in California's Orange County -- where illegal immigration is a flashpoint -- Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, a volunteer border-patrol group, won just 25% of the vote.
Mr. Ellis of Americans for Tax Reform also points to seven 2004 Republican primaries where immigration-restriction candidates never won more than 46% of the vote. Among those beating back challenges: Arizona Congressmen James Kolbe and Jeff Flake, who are sponsors of a House bill that would let illegal immigrants earn legal residency in the U.S.
Candidates who want to restrict immigration seem not to fare well because very few people worry enough about immigration to vote on it -- even though many of them tell pollsters they're worried. In the Wall Street Journal-NBC poll, 78% of those questioned favored "tightening" the border with Mexico -- but only 7% said illegal immigration was their biggest national concern.
Immigration is "a loud debate that produces few voters," says Frank Sharry, director of the National Immigration Forum, a Washington immigrants-rights group.
But that doesn't mean immigration won't be talked about this campaign season. Most prominently among 2006 candidates, Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Colorado Republican, is toying with a symbolic run for the White House. Among other things, Mr. Tancredo wants to deport the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants now in the U.S. and deny citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants.
Immigration restrictionists also have announced runs for governor in Colorado, for the U.S. Senate from California and for a smattering of House seats. San Diego's Mr. Bilbray is running in an April primary to succeed former Rep. Randall "Duke" Cunningham while also pursuing a class-action lawsuit that would prevent California public colleges from offering in-state tuition to illegal aliens.
Some state legislatures are considering extending in-state tuition, health benefits and driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, even while others want to ban such benefits. In Ohio, a statehouse Republican has said he is considering an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to exclude illegal immigrants from the census counts that are used to apportion Congressional seats.
Bills in New Hampshire and North Carolina would require local policemen to enforce federal immigration laws, and one in Virginia would require proof of legal residency to obtain a marriage license.
With Republicans largely leading the anti-immigration charge, the issue is causing heartburn for the national party, which was hoping that its generally pro-immigration stand would help it pick up Hispanic voters. Twelve years ago, California's Republican Gov. Pete Wilson won re-election in part by campaigning for a ballot measure that would deny benefits to illegal aliens -- a rare instance where an anti-immigration stand won the day.
But a decade passed before Republicans won the governor's office again, and they still haven't won back Hispanic voters. "It was a metaphor for short-term gain, long-term loss," says the National Immigration Forum's Mr. Sharry.
Republican pollster Ed Goeas says he urges his clients to talk about solutions to illegal immigration instead of focusing on emotion-charged issues like immigrant job centers if they want to win. His firm, the Tarrance Group, does polling for several immigration-restriction candidates, including Mr. Tancredo, he says.
But in anticipation of the 2006 elections, he's also running voter focus groups to help candidates handle such volatile issues as amnesty for illegal immigrants and whether to allow guest workers to eventually stay in the U.S. After voters let off steam, he says, focus groups show that immigration "becomes a very reasoned conversation very quickly."
Write to June Kronholz at june.kronholz@wsj.com
Source : Wall Street Journal : 02/01/2006
Can you post the article here? I'm not able to get to it.
Admin,
Here you go ::p
President Takes Dual Tack on Immigration
White House Seeks Tougher Enforcement,
While Pushing Idea of Guest-Worker Program
By JUNE KRONHOLZ
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
February 2, 2006; Page A8
WASHINGTON -- President bush drew big applause during his State of the Union address with a renewed call for "a rational, humane guest-worker program" to keep the economy humming.
But that appeal came only after Mr. Bush issued a much sterner one first -- for tougher enforcement of immigration laws, more vigilance on the border and an immigration policy that "reflects our values."
The message Mr. Bush delivered to lawmakers is the same one an increasingly vocal anti-immigration chorus is sending to him: First get tough; then we'll talk.
Mr. Bush was cheered by an unlikely alliance of pro-business Republicans, Democrats, unions and immigrant groups when he called for a guest-worker program in his State of the Union address two years ago. But the idea has hit a wall of opposition from the party's cultural conservatives and security hawks who first want to stop the flood of illegal immigrants into the U.S. (See related article.)
In December, the House of Representatives passed legislation that would, among other things, extend a short wall on the border with Mexico to 700 miles. The Senate, which had planned to overhaul immigration laws when it takes up its own bill in a few weeks, now also is under pressure from some Republicans to toughen border controls first.
As immigration soars to an all-time high, that get-tough argument is gaining political steam. With the 2006 elections still 10 months away, a half-dozen candidates are running for national office on pledges to stop illegal immigration. Bills on the issue, many denying benefits to illegal immigrants, have been introduced in 31 state legislatures.
STATE OF THE UNION REVIEW
• Can President's Plan Keep America Competitive?
• Bush's Energy Plan Faces Hurdles
• Industry Cheers Cleaner-Coal Push
• Full Text: Read the complete prepared text of the address.
• Question of the Day: Which topic should the Bush administration make its top priority this year?
And polls show mounting voter unease about immigration: A December 2005 Wall Street Journal-NBC poll found that 57% of those questioned think the U.S. is "too open to immigrants."
"It's astonishing how much this has become an issue across the country," says Brian Bilbray, a San Diego Republican who hopes to return to the U.S. House of Representatives this year after spending the past six years as a lobbyist for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which wants to restrict immigration.
But for all the emotion immigration is stirring up, political operatives in both parties warn that it isn't an issue that rallies voters. "Will this impact your electoral ambitions?" asks Ryan Ellis of the conservative group Americans for Tax Reform, who has studied the role immigration played in recent elections. "All history has indicated 'no,' whether you're in Arizona or Maine," he answers.
It didn't prove a successful strategy for the Virginia governor's race in November. Republican Jerry Kilgore seized late in the campaign on the issue of taxpayer-funded job centers for illegal immigrants, and in a stinging television ad asked of his Democratic opponent, "What part of illegal does Tim Kaine not understand?" Although immigration was only one issue in the campaign, Mr. Kaine won with 52% of the vote.
Likewise, in December, in a special House election in California's Orange County -- where illegal immigration is a flashpoint -- Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, a volunteer border-patrol group, won just 25% of the vote.
Mr. Ellis of Americans for Tax Reform also points to seven 2004 Republican primaries where immigration-restriction candidates never won more than 46% of the vote. Among those beating back challenges: Arizona Congressmen James Kolbe and Jeff Flake, who are sponsors of a House bill that would let illegal immigrants earn legal residency in the U.S.
Candidates who want to restrict immigration seem not to fare well because very few people worry enough about immigration to vote on it -- even though many of them tell pollsters they're worried. In the Wall Street Journal-NBC poll, 78% of those questioned favored "tightening" the border with Mexico -- but only 7% said illegal immigration was their biggest national concern.
Immigration is "a loud debate that produces few voters," says Frank Sharry, director of the National Immigration Forum, a Washington immigrants-rights group.
But that doesn't mean immigration won't be talked about this campaign season. Most prominently among 2006 candidates, Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Colorado Republican, is toying with a symbolic run for the White House. Among other things, Mr. Tancredo wants to deport the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants now in the U.S. and deny citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants.
Immigration restrictionists also have announced runs for governor in Colorado, for the U.S. Senate from California and for a smattering of House seats. San Diego's Mr. Bilbray is running in an April primary to succeed former Rep. Randall "Duke" Cunningham while also pursuing a class-action lawsuit that would prevent California public colleges from offering in-state tuition to illegal aliens.
Some state legislatures are considering extending in-state tuition, health benefits and driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, even while others want to ban such benefits. In Ohio, a statehouse Republican has said he is considering an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to exclude illegal immigrants from the census counts that are used to apportion Congressional seats.
Bills in New Hampshire and North Carolina would require local policemen to enforce federal immigration laws, and one in Virginia would require proof of legal residency to obtain a marriage license.
With Republicans largely leading the anti-immigration charge, the issue is causing heartburn for the national party, which was hoping that its generally pro-immigration stand would help it pick up Hispanic voters. Twelve years ago, California's Republican Gov. Pete Wilson won re-election in part by campaigning for a ballot measure that would deny benefits to illegal aliens -- a rare instance where an anti-immigration stand won the day.
But a decade passed before Republicans won the governor's office again, and they still haven't won back Hispanic voters. "It was a metaphor for short-term gain, long-term loss," says the National Immigration Forum's Mr. Sharry.
Republican pollster Ed Goeas says he urges his clients to talk about solutions to illegal immigration instead of focusing on emotion-charged issues like immigrant job centers if they want to win. His firm, the Tarrance Group, does polling for several immigration-restriction candidates, including Mr. Tancredo, he says.
But in anticipation of the 2006 elections, he's also running voter focus groups to help candidates handle such volatile issues as amnesty for illegal immigrants and whether to allow guest workers to eventually stay in the U.S. After voters let off steam, he says, focus groups show that immigration "becomes a very reasoned conversation very quickly."
Write to June Kronholz at june.kronholz@wsj.com
Source : Wall Street Journal : 02/01/2006
wallpaper emma stone red hair color.
senthil1
06-29 05:10 PM
If rumors are true there is no point in sending I485 application if State dept announces that Visa is not available on July 2nd Morning. If confusion or rumor is cleared then Lawyers can send the application. That stand may be correct. But what if State Dept announces on Wednesday. Then those who are filed on Monday and Tuesday will get EAD and AP. I hope these rumors will not become true
You can sue this firm, if they have really suspended the work on I-485.
How can they react to rumours?
You can sue this firm, if they have really suspended the work on I-485.
How can they react to rumours?
gcisadawg
08-20 01:07 PM
DOS has alloted most unused visa # into EB2 category this year, and EB3 was stuck due to no additional unused EB1 visas.
Visa Bulletin mentioned they did this in according to the requirements of Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. But actually this might be a misunderstanding of Section 202(a)(5) and Section 203(b) - There is NO words in the act on how to allot unused visa # to differnt categories. Even the country limit and category limit would not apply if there are unused visas #. The allotment Mr. Charles Oppenheimer did horizontal spillover caused longer and more backlogs of EB3.
Congress has a concern on the backlogs and Bush's administration promised to reduce backlogs as much as they can. If Immigration and Nationality Act allows the government to spillover the unused visa # to EB2 & EB3, and a more humane and fair system should take care of early priority date first and do whatever the government has promised, should we ask Mr. Charles Oppenheimer to think about alloting some unused visas to EB3 so it can move forword a little bit?
That is not true...If you look at the Visa Bullettin, it says
First: Priority Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required for fourth and fifth preferences.
Second: Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Persons of Exceptional Ability: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any umbers not required by first preference.
Third: Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide level, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences, not more than 10,000 of which to "Other Workers".
Based on the above EB1 spills over to EB2 first.....Eb3 gets unused EB2.
EB3 gets EB1 only if it is not used by EB1.
I'm EB3-I with Oct 2003 PD and I understand your frustration. There is hope only if a legislation change happens. Based on my calculation, there are about 50K to 60K EB3-I pending before me.
Thanks,
G
Visa Bulletin mentioned they did this in according to the requirements of Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. But actually this might be a misunderstanding of Section 202(a)(5) and Section 203(b) - There is NO words in the act on how to allot unused visa # to differnt categories. Even the country limit and category limit would not apply if there are unused visas #. The allotment Mr. Charles Oppenheimer did horizontal spillover caused longer and more backlogs of EB3.
Congress has a concern on the backlogs and Bush's administration promised to reduce backlogs as much as they can. If Immigration and Nationality Act allows the government to spillover the unused visa # to EB2 & EB3, and a more humane and fair system should take care of early priority date first and do whatever the government has promised, should we ask Mr. Charles Oppenheimer to think about alloting some unused visas to EB3 so it can move forword a little bit?
That is not true...If you look at the Visa Bullettin, it says
First: Priority Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required for fourth and fifth preferences.
Second: Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Persons of Exceptional Ability: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any umbers not required by first preference.
Third: Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide level, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences, not more than 10,000 of which to "Other Workers".
Based on the above EB1 spills over to EB2 first.....Eb3 gets unused EB2.
EB3 gets EB1 only if it is not used by EB1.
I'm EB3-I with Oct 2003 PD and I understand your frustration. There is hope only if a legislation change happens. Based on my calculation, there are about 50K to 60K EB3-I pending before me.
Thanks,
G
2011 Red is a really fun trend this
485Mbe4001
09-29 07:55 PM
its ok, you misunderstood my point. I dont want to divert OP of this thread.
Anyways the fact of the matter is that we are in a limbo, all indications point to Obama becoming the next president of US. if CIR 2008 was any indication , we as EB applicants are royally screwed if Sen Durbin dictates his immigration policy. What is the use of talking about wars and innocent people when chances are that the advocate of his immigration policy is opposed to my main issue of EB reform. high low Taxes, 401k's, houses, Medicare etc will matter if you get to stay here in the first place. A average 6-9 years of paying taxes, supporting medicare and Social Security and we now need to think about moving to different countries where skilled immigrants are welcome....think about it. Just look at the CIR 2008 discussion to understand what i am talking about. Read the senators transcripts.
Anyways the fact of the matter is that we are in a limbo, all indications point to Obama becoming the next president of US. if CIR 2008 was any indication , we as EB applicants are royally screwed if Sen Durbin dictates his immigration policy. What is the use of talking about wars and innocent people when chances are that the advocate of his immigration policy is opposed to my main issue of EB reform. high low Taxes, 401k's, houses, Medicare etc will matter if you get to stay here in the first place. A average 6-9 years of paying taxes, supporting medicare and Social Security and we now need to think about moving to different countries where skilled immigrants are welcome....think about it. Just look at the CIR 2008 discussion to understand what i am talking about. Read the senators transcripts.
more...
usertt123
02-28 02:58 PM
I agree calabor well said ;), but realy its frustrating when you have a family to look after and a house. The worst thing is no one is accountable for this mess. Specialy when you have been in US for such a long time.
Veeru123, so in your case did you call DOS and then things worked out or consulate themselves send you the email/passport on 25th. Let me also know is it an automated response system at DOS or we have to speak to someone and give our EAC# as case reference. Your advice would be of great help.
Veeru123, so in your case did you call DOS and then things worked out or consulate themselves send you the email/passport on 25th. Let me also know is it an automated response system at DOS or we have to speak to someone and give our EAC# as case reference. Your advice would be of great help.
Macaca
07-18 06:37 AM
LOU DOBBS TONIGHT
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...28/ldt.01.html
This URL does not work. What is the date of this newscast!
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...28/ldt.01.html
This URL does not work. What is the date of this newscast!
more...
pappu
11-06 03:28 PM
Check this:
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Liang%2010-30-07.pdf
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
complying.�).
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
at *12.
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Liang%2010-30-07.pdf
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
complying.�).
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
at *12.
2010 Best Hair Color: Emma Stone
Das73
05-09 11:57 AM
You should be able to file I-140 after your LC got cleared.
EB-3's visa dates are at '08-MAY-01', so you can not file I-485 until visa dates move to SEP 01[You don't need to wait for the Visa dates to current].
May be your lawyer is busy & thinking about some other case. Remind him about your priority date !
================================================== ======
Hi
My PD is sept 2001. India. I would like to know if i can file I140 and I485 concurently? My attorney says I can. Only thing they will not do anything with 485 until the visa numbers become current. Is this true?
Any help in answering my question is appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
================================================== ======
EB-3's visa dates are at '08-MAY-01', so you can not file I-485 until visa dates move to SEP 01[You don't need to wait for the Visa dates to current].
May be your lawyer is busy & thinking about some other case. Remind him about your priority date !
================================================== ======
Hi
My PD is sept 2001. India. I would like to know if i can file I140 and I485 concurently? My attorney says I can. Only thing they will not do anything with 485 until the visa numbers become current. Is this true?
Any help in answering my question is appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
================================================== ======
more...
baburob2
01-07 10:29 PM
not that i know of , but i have heard at number of places this coming up very faster. it might be one of those s1932 clauses in disguise. i will keep a tab on this legislation which seems to be very good.
hair Think about it: Emma Stone,
singhsa3
08-20 10:55 PM
Thats exactly what it is... Now folks take a look here. These were the dates before July 2007.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3236.html
It will be resonable to assume that these will be the dates in OCT bulletien for Eb3-I.
Finally, 5882 is our only hope for now.
With the earlier method or the current method, EB3-I will always end up last. Vertically EB3-ROW gets the excess visas (old method), horizontally EB2-I gets the excess visas (new method). So, either way EB3-I won't benefit, the only solace being that with the current system atleast our EB2-I friends are getting their freedom faster.
For us, visa recapture or other legislative changes are the only relief.
BTW, my PD is June 2003, EB3-I
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3236.html
It will be resonable to assume that these will be the dates in OCT bulletien for Eb3-I.
Finally, 5882 is our only hope for now.
With the earlier method or the current method, EB3-I will always end up last. Vertically EB3-ROW gets the excess visas (old method), horizontally EB2-I gets the excess visas (new method). So, either way EB3-I won't benefit, the only solace being that with the current system atleast our EB2-I friends are getting their freedom faster.
For us, visa recapture or other legislative changes are the only relief.
BTW, my PD is June 2003, EB3-I
more...
santb1975
11-17 01:02 AM
Does anyone have a count?
hot Emma Stone Red Hairstyle 2011
ash27
06-13 01:08 PM
gc26...., It seems that you have missed the point again. Any logical person will have the capability to comprehend that this thread is against visa abuse in L1 category.. If you still didn't get it, objective is to explore the options to report abuse of L1. Benefits are: genuine people still get the opportunity, reduce over supply in market, not bring wages down etc.
Its that simple. If you can give me 1 good reason to not bring this issue up, I can definitely discuss the issue. But, stop giving me this crap about raising voice and being right...
Totally, non baseless argument by you and Ganguteli...
Its that simple. If you can give me 1 good reason to not bring this issue up, I can definitely discuss the issue. But, stop giving me this crap about raising voice and being right...
Totally, non baseless argument by you and Ganguteli...
more...
house The red hair seems to fit her
GCapplicant
06-29 04:35 PM
I always thought, the system was fair, it was only the overwhelming numbers of immigrants from certain countries that made it look unfair....but the closer I get to the stage where DOS decisions start impacting me, the more I realize that the system is not fair at all. The game of visa numbers and allocations is driven by white house politics alone...DOS being the spokesperson for the politics. Essentially the white house is directly throttling immigration through the DOS...on its own whims and fancy.
So, what made you import yourself here? You could have stayed back in your own country..by the way, coming on a H4 was a choice..it wasn't forced upon you...didn't you know before coming here that you would have to stay home on a H4? H4->F1, H4->H1...all these options are always open to you..
Do you respect others feelings here...
We are all here for some justice-no arguments-no offense
what r u...
Mind your langauage-Did u face any serious problems from some H4-
before you try to supress some ones feelings change your attitude-
So, what made you import yourself here? You could have stayed back in your own country..by the way, coming on a H4 was a choice..it wasn't forced upon you...didn't you know before coming here that you would have to stay home on a H4? H4->F1, H4->H1...all these options are always open to you..
Do you respect others feelings here...
We are all here for some justice-no arguments-no offense
what r u...
Mind your langauage-Did u face any serious problems from some H4-
before you try to supress some ones feelings change your attitude-
tattoo redhair. Emma Stone
realizeit
03-29 11:48 AM
There are two waves of movement going to happen for EB2 this year. One starting in May and the other starting in July.
The 12000 unused visa numbers from EB1 is not the total for the year 2011. It is almost certain that, this is the spillover from the first 2 quarters of 2011. Along with this, there are some numbers from EB2 ROW as well. The spillover will only get applied to all those countries which are retrogressed.
12000 visa numbers would move mathematically the dates to somewhere in Sept 2006 for India and China Eb2. The porting from EB3 to EB2 is still a factor, but that won't exceed more then 1500 (which are ready to be assigned visa).
In order to utilize these 12000 visa numbers, USCIS may possibly consider 15000 applicants so that they will get 12000 approvable, background check free and non-delayed cases.
So, i think for EB2 the dates could move to either Oct/Nov/Dec of 2006.
In July, the next wave of spill over could move the dates further into 2007.
The 12000 unused visa numbers from EB1 is not the total for the year 2011. It is almost certain that, this is the spillover from the first 2 quarters of 2011. Along with this, there are some numbers from EB2 ROW as well. The spillover will only get applied to all those countries which are retrogressed.
12000 visa numbers would move mathematically the dates to somewhere in Sept 2006 for India and China Eb2. The porting from EB3 to EB2 is still a factor, but that won't exceed more then 1500 (which are ready to be assigned visa).
In order to utilize these 12000 visa numbers, USCIS may possibly consider 15000 applicants so that they will get 12000 approvable, background check free and non-delayed cases.
So, i think for EB2 the dates could move to either Oct/Nov/Dec of 2006.
In July, the next wave of spill over could move the dates further into 2007.
more...
pictures dresses emma stone red hair
pappu
01-08 03:36 PM
Multiple-Year Single EAD-AP Card Reportedly Limited to Visa Regrogression 485 Filers
Some more details have been released on Mr. Aytes' statement on this plan. Reportedly, such multiple year card may be issued only to those who suffer the visa number retrogression. In other words, those 485 filers who will experience delays in 485 applications who do not suffer from the visa number retrogression but from the USCIS delays including namechecks are not likely to benefit from the upcoming multi-year card issuance.
I posted about this here
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=212615#post212615
Some more details have been released on Mr. Aytes' statement on this plan. Reportedly, such multiple year card may be issued only to those who suffer the visa number retrogression. In other words, those 485 filers who will experience delays in 485 applications who do not suffer from the visa number retrogression but from the USCIS delays including namechecks are not likely to benefit from the upcoming multi-year card issuance.
I posted about this here
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=212615#post212615
dresses 2011 emma stone red hair
gsc999
07-10 07:47 PM
It seems the popular perception is that this is an Indian effort.
We need to correct it.
It seems some of the members who interviewed with the media got carried away with "Gandhigiri" and all things Indian. It sounds ironic, we are craving attention from Indian media while trying to become Permanent residents of USA.
We need to correct it.
It seems some of the members who interviewed with the media got carried away with "Gandhigiri" and all things Indian. It sounds ironic, we are craving attention from Indian media while trying to become Permanent residents of USA.
more...
makeup Dear Emma,. Your red hair made
drirshad
01-06 11:11 AM
Guys got a reply from Mattew Oh as follows on enquring about section 8001.
--- Matthew Oh <ohlaw@immigration-law.com> wrote:
> Irshad: I am glad that you have started a new
> portal. I was going to
> contact you to address problem of setting up a link
> to the immigrationportal
> as it has to go through another attorney's website.
> Some attorneys may have
> a problem with that. Since you have a new web site,
> I will take a look at
> it and may consider setting up a link on our web
> site.
>
> With reference to 8001, the community should focus
> on the Comprehensive
> Immigration Reform legislation rather than S. 1932
> issue. That legislation
> is gone. Thank you for keeping in touch with me.
>
--- Matthew Oh <ohlaw@immigration-law.com> wrote:
> Irshad: I am glad that you have started a new
> portal. I was going to
> contact you to address problem of setting up a link
> to the immigrationportal
> as it has to go through another attorney's website.
> Some attorneys may have
> a problem with that. Since you have a new web site,
> I will take a look at
> it and may consider setting up a link on our web
> site.
>
> With reference to 8001, the community should focus
> on the Comprehensive
> Immigration Reform legislation rather than S. 1932
> issue. That legislation
> is gone. Thank you for keeping in touch with me.
>
girlfriend emma stone hair color.
desi485
11-18 04:14 PM
Hi guys,
I sent in the four letters 2 weeks ago and this week I got a mail from TEXAS Service Center. They returned my letter in original and they also wrote a big one page letter.
I don't have it with me right now but in it, it was mentioned that "Please call us at our inquiry center if you have any inquires or you can check your status online as well as the recent processing times.
Don't know if others are also receiving the same returned mail but I wanted to let you guys know this as an FYI.
It does not seem like the letter reached the person to whom it was directed to.
did you emailed to ombudsman also? any replies from him?
I sent in the four letters 2 weeks ago and this week I got a mail from TEXAS Service Center. They returned my letter in original and they also wrote a big one page letter.
I don't have it with me right now but in it, it was mentioned that "Please call us at our inquiry center if you have any inquires or you can check your status online as well as the recent processing times.
Don't know if others are also receiving the same returned mail but I wanted to let you guys know this as an FYI.
It does not seem like the letter reached the person to whom it was directed to.
did you emailed to ombudsman also? any replies from him?
hairstyles hot emma stone red hair color.
darslee
07-10 11:37 PM
Wow! I am so happy that the flowers brought such joy! And we made our point.
jb1909
08-19 10:46 AM
To xyz2009:
Congratulations on getting approved. My wife traveleved to India in a similar situation. She left 2 days after the GC approval email. She returned yesterday on her H1B. I think the systems at the POE take time to reflect the new status. She was planning to inform the IO in case he/she asks about the GC approval - but they did not ask anything. Before she left, she spoke to a second level IO who said it was OK to travel and just to explain to the IO at POE in case it comes up. D-155 stamp is not done at POE.
Your wife can either use AP or H4.
Congratulations on getting approved. My wife traveleved to India in a similar situation. She left 2 days after the GC approval email. She returned yesterday on her H1B. I think the systems at the POE take time to reflect the new status. She was planning to inform the IO in case he/she asks about the GC approval - but they did not ask anything. Before she left, she spoke to a second level IO who said it was OK to travel and just to explain to the IO at POE in case it comes up. D-155 stamp is not done at POE.
Your wife can either use AP or H4.
polapragada
04-26 07:49 PM
Well One thing is for sure ...
Every time When US Senator Chuck Grassley introduces a bill ... He and His Anti-I
Are getting succeded in two ways
1. Bill is getting passed
2. Dividing the immigrent family into narrow tiny pieces...
If you wants to protest against L1 they will do the same with US...
Guess what they can lobby more than us.. they invest more than us... you are talking about the gaints companies.
Stop fussing about L1 and start disscussing about the billl
This is what I did I sent the bill text to my friends (L1 and H1) and explaning them that this Bill is equally bad for us both and let their employer knows and act against to it...
I sent E-mail to my sanator to vote against to the bill
Every time When US Senator Chuck Grassley introduces a bill ... He and His Anti-I
Are getting succeded in two ways
1. Bill is getting passed
2. Dividing the immigrent family into narrow tiny pieces...
If you wants to protest against L1 they will do the same with US...
Guess what they can lobby more than us.. they invest more than us... you are talking about the gaints companies.
Stop fussing about L1 and start disscussing about the billl
This is what I did I sent the bill text to my friends (L1 and H1) and explaning them that this Bill is equally bad for us both and let their employer knows and act against to it...
I sent E-mail to my sanator to vote against to the bill
No comments:
Post a Comment